Did Arians Exist?

Traditionally, “Arian” was believed to apply to a homogenous and well-organized heretical movement that arose in the fourth century, which took its theological cues from Arius.

Recent scholars doubt most of that.  Arius was a conservative, not a deviant.  Arius was a lesser figure than he has been made out; Athanasius made him central and, influenced by Marcellus and others during his Roman exile, labeled everyone he opposed “Arian.”  Those labeled “Arians” different among themselves.  Rowan Williams and Maurice Wiles describe the opponents of Athanasius as a “loose” and “uneasy” alliance; Williams thinks (or thought at the time of his book on Arius) that they were united only in their opposition to Nicea and its homoousios .

Others have suggested that “Arianism” as historically understood is a construct of Athanasian rhetoric.  David Gwynn ( The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the `Arian Controversy’ (Oxford Theological Monographs) ) says that Williams and Wiles are still “shackled by the assumption that a recognized ‘Arian’ position must in some sense exist.”  Even though they define it minimally “in negative terms,” they have “still in effect adopted Athanasius’ polemical polarization, defining as ‘Arian’ anyone who questioned the Nicene Creed or who opposed Athanasius himself.”

Even granting these challenges to the standard account, neither the historical nor the theological questions are thereby settled:

1) Even Gwynn concedes that there were opponents of Nicea.  ”Arian” is not an accurate label; we can give up “Eusebians” too (the burden of Gwynn’s book).  Granted, those are prejudicial labels.  Yet, there were opponents, and they knew each other.  They were real people.  They shared something in common – if nothing else, opposition to Nicea.Just after Nicea, before Arius died, Eusebius of Nicomedia and others were working to get him reinstated, and that effort included appeals to Constantine.  Looks like there might be the makings of a “loose coalition” of bishops and others united in opposition to Nicea.   Are we to think that opponents of Nicea didn’t recognize each other as co-belligerents and work together?  Though his aim is to “deconstruct” Athanasius’ terminology, he has given enough attention to re-mapping the contenders to recognize that alliances existed: “The recognition of the polemical nature of party constructs like the ‘Eusebians’ raises important questions concerning the networks of friendship and patronage that certainly existed within the Church in this period.”

2) Unless we are willing to give up the category of “orthodoxy” entirely, then there has to be a line somewhere.  Be as generously orthodox as we may, but still there’s a point where we’ve move from that generous space into another space.  Perhaps Athanasius ignored differences among his opponents, and unfairly lumped them together with the (somewhat discredited) Arius.  But if the Nicene Creed actually expresses the truth about Father and Son, then opponents of the Creed deserve to be lumped together.  The fact that they protest being lumped together isn’t necessarily a reason to stop lumping.

3) As his writings show, Athanasius was aware of the nuances of difference between, say, Arius and Asterius; still, he lumped them together.  Perhaps that was because he saw them as theological variations working within a common, erroneous, framework.

4) The splitting going on in fourth-century scholarship is healthy insofar as it gives us a more accurate and richer understanding of the conflict.  Academic splitting, though, is typically followed by re-lumping.  Best not to jump in too enthusiastically with the splitters, especially if that affiliation arises from a desire to be current.